Test Captains- an in-depth look

This article has been in the pipeline for long. An analysis of Test Captains is not an easy task and will lead to many arguments and comments. However that cannot deter us from making an honest attempt. As long as the comments are positive in nature, it does not matter.

What are the requirements of a good Test captain? The measurable factors are on-field performance as a player, leading from the front, achieving good match and series results, both home and away. The non-measurable factors are man management, identification of talent, getting players to do their best and support of team members with selection entities. I will only concentrate on the measurable factors and stay away from the non-measurable ones. I am confident that this will be fair even to great captains whose on-field performance might be below par.

I have decided on a few yardsticks for this analysis. Readers should be happy with these since these reflect earlier reader comments.

The first is that there will be no longevity based allocation of points. I will set a fairly high bar for selection. Once this bar is crossed, all the selected captains will have an equal chance of achieving a high position in the table.

The second is that the team strength measures will be adjusted for the period during which the concerned Test was played. This will ensure a fair playing field.

The third is that the captains' individual performances will be weighted for the quality of opposition. The all-Test batting average of 29.92 and bowling average of 31.51 are used as reference. In other words, a 100 against a strong Australian team will be weighted at a much higher level than a 100 against a weak Bangladesh team. Similarly for bowling.

After a number of trial runs I have decided on 30 Tests as the minimum requirement for inclusion. This has been worked on various factors, not the least is the need to keep the number of qualifying cricketers, in this case 35, to a reasonable number. Also 30 Tests represents between 3 and 5 years reign, a fairly long one. Unfortunately this keeps out very successful captains such as Don Bradman, Richie Benaud, Wasim Akram, Jayawardene, Shaun Pollock (he was a very good Test captain) to name a few. To do proper justice to these great players, I have presented an additional table of captains who have led their teams in 20-29 tests at the end.

Now for the details, to be followed by the tables. I waited for the end of the wonderful Test match at Sydney to prepare these tables since the result there might have had a bearing on the final positions.

The measures for analysing Test Captains is broadly classified into the following four (measurable) factors.

These are the raw unadjusted results. A win is a win, whether it is against Australia at Sydney or against Bangladesh at Mirpur. Similarly a draw is not a loss and as such some credit has to be given. The measure of success is derived by the following formula and converted to points.

No of wins + (No of draws / 2)
Success Factor = ----------------------------------
No of matches

A captain who wins all the matches (not that any one has done it) gets full credit.

2. Match results adjusted for team quality and venue.

The best way of explaining this measure, which carries the most weight is to show a table of imaginary match results. Let me take three teams. Australia, with a TSI of 75, England, with a TSI of 60 and Bangladesh, with a TSI of 45. All possible results and the winning captain credits are tabulated below.

The summary is that the minimum points are allocated when the strongest team defeats the weakest team at home and the maximum points are allocated when the weakest team defeats the strongest team away. The limiting values have a factor of nearly 3 between themselves. Everything else is in between.

Captains in drawn matches get 50% of the adjusted TSI values.

The points for all tests captained by one player are summed and divided by the number of Tests captained. This ensures that longevity in captaincy does not play a part.

3. Series results.

A few comments on the Series calculations. Until now a total of 590 series have been played. Single Test series, 50 of these at last count, are not considered to be series. A minimum of two Tests have to be played. There have been three multi-team series (The 1912 Triangular tournament at England between Eng-Aus-Saf, the First Asian Test Championship of 1998-99 and Second Asian Test Championship of 2001-02). For these three tournaments, the home teams are respectively England, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The winner of these three tournaments, viz., England, Pakistan and Sri Lanka get the winner's credits. For the only series played in neutral locations, the 2002 matches between Pakistan and West Indies/Australia, all three teams are considered to be "Away".

The winning captain gets the average of the losing team's TSI as credit for winning the series. A bonus of 20% is given for winning an away series. If multiple captains have captained within a series they get proportionate credit. All these are subject to the above mentioned adjustments for relative strengths of the two teams. Aus/Ind/Saf will get least credit for winning at Bangladesh while Bangladesh will get maximum credit for winning at Aus/Saf/Ind, if ever that miracle happens.

The points for all series/part series captained by one player are summed and divided by the number of Tests captained. This ensures that longevity in captaincy does not play a part. Number of Tests rather than number of series is used to ensure uniform weighting. Also all series wins are treated the same. Of course, if a captain wins the series 5-0 he would have got substantial match win credit points as against one who wins 1-0.

It is possible that there is some overlap amongst the three Results based parameters. However each has a different objective and the overlap exists unformly across all captains. The across-the-board division by the "Tests captained" figure smoothes all variations.

4. Individual performances - Batting, Bowling and Fielding.

Finally on-field performance. I think it is essential to recognize the batting, bowling and fielding performances of the captain. Cricket is not any longer, and should never have been, a non-playing-captain game. We recognize the performances by converting runs/wickets/catches to points, adjust these for the quality of other team's batting and bowling, sum these and then divide by the number of tests captained. Wicket-keeper-captains' dismissals are given additional weighting.

Let me summarize these. I have kept in mind a figure of 70-75% for different Results related points allocation and 25-30% for Performance related points allocation. I also expected to achieve these allocations at the total level. At individual levels the allocations will vary considerably. A low-performing captain such as Brearley gets over 90% on Results related allocations, an average-performing captain such as Steve Waugh gets over 80% on Results related allocations while a Performing captain such as Imran Khan or Sobers gets over 40% in Performance related points allocations. The summary is given below.

Imran Khan is deservedly on top, both for his success as a captain and as a performer. He always led from the front. His average of 50 runs & 4 wickets per test as captain are testimony to this. His top position is due to his high level of consistent performances, And that is how it should be.

Ponting has been a very good and successful captain. People might say that this was easy with world class performers such as Warne, McGrath and Gilchrist playing under him. He still had to produce the results. Incidentally he was comfortably in the top position when I started this a couple of months back. The twin losses to India and South Africa have pushed him down. Ponting has averaged nearly 95 runs per test as captain.

Steve Waugh was as charismatic as Imran Khan. He inherited a good side from Taylor and handed over nearly as good side to Ponting. The changeover of the old guard under him was smooth and effective. His performance, however, has been average. Only 65 runs per test as captain.

Gary Sobers' results as a captain have been only average. He is the one of two captains to get a below-50% success rate in the top-20. However his performances on the field as captain have been the best by anyone. 90 runs and 3 wickets per test have pushed him into the fourth place. Overall a very deserved position.

Illingworth was again a successful captain with above average performance. His Ashes wins are legendary.

It can be seen that Mike Brearley, considered by many to be possibly the best captain ever is very well placed at the 14th place. Note his results scores and his performance score. He was a great captain but a mediocre performer. He scored a very low 35 runs per test.

If there was a bravery factor introduced, Greame Smith would be at the top. His performance at Sydney was heart-warming. However his achievements came much earlier, at Perth and Melbourne. There is no doubt that, by the time he finishes his captaincy career, he would be right at the top. A performing leader, Smith averaged 85 runs per test.

Lara is placed way down the table, justifiably so. One of the greatest batsmen who ever played the game, Lara was, at best, an average captain. These statements would also apply to the other great, Tendulkar.

Kapil Dev is the best Indian captain. Readers might say that Ganguly achieved more as a captain. However Ganguly's average performance (52 runs per test as captain) pushed him down a few places. Readers must also remember that this is an all-time best captain list and Kapil's 16th and Ganguly's 22nd places are reasonable rewards for their contributions to Indian cricket.

A few interesting captaincy related points:

1. 290 players have captained their teams in the 1905 Test matches, 41 of them having done so only once.
2. Alan Border has captained in most tests, 93, followed by Stephen Fleming with 79 tests.
3. Steve Waugh has won most tests, 41, followed by Clive Lloyd and Ricky Ponting (after the great Sydney win), with 36 wins.
4. The best result has been achieved by Steve Waugh with 78.1%, followed by Ponting with 76.4%.
5. With the great Australian series win, Greame Smith has won 14 series, alone at the summit he shared with four others. Lloyd, Steve Waugh, Ponting and Fleming have 13 series wins.
6. Imran Khan has taken most wickets, 187 in 48 tests, followed by Richie Benaud with 138 in only 28 tests as captain. Incidentally Benaud has performed in an outstanding manner as a captain. In 35 other tests he has taken only 110 wickets. 7. Border leads the run tally for captains with 6623 runs in 93 tests, followed by Greame Smith with 5633 in 67 tests as captain.

Top Test Captains - Addl report for those who captained between 20 and 29 tests

Richie Benaud was an outstanding leader and a great performer, averaging nearly 5 wickets and 30 runs per test as captain. The unassuming Shaun Pollock also achieved considerable success as a Test captain. These should not be forgotten because of the 2003 WC fiasco. Coupled with a high success rate he also averaged 38 runs and 4 wickets per test. Wasim Akram had slightly better figures as a performer and slightly worse figures under the results category. Don Bradman's success as a captain and performer is reflected in the fourth position. Note Jayawardene's performance. He is the only one, other than the Don, to average over 100 runs per test as captain.

If the cut-off had been lower at 25 tests, Benaud, Pollock and Wasim Akram would have taken the first three positions. I would not have too many problems with that list.

Douglas Jardine does not make the cut-off for this list also. He captained England 15 times and won 9 times, 4 of these, through the probably unethical body-line methods, against the strong Australian team.

This table is provided only for information. Readers can draw their own conclusion. Only comment is on how high the position of Mike Brearley is in this list, fifth.

It's no surprise to see Mike Brearley high on any list of captains. But despite his much vaunted man management skills he also had the benefit of playing against much weakened opposition and his reign also coincided with the Second Coming of Geoff Boycott, Ian Botham in his prime and England's all time leading wicket taker Bob Willis at his best. They were well and truely exposed in Australia when the Packer players returned for the 1979/80 tour, and how much of Botham's 81 heroics was down to Brearley is open to question.

The way, even with a bowling-attack that was often limited, he still managed often to block batsmen's scoring strokes. He was a master of setting fields for bad bowling, and also for good bowling, and spotting when which one was required. He also knew bowlers very well, however short the length of time they'd been in his team for was - I lost count of the times when a bad ball would be bowled and hit straight to a fielder Fleming had only moved there a ball or two ago. Of course no-one can predict exactly what's coming, but you can notice patterns, and the best captains, like Fleming, do so.

Another thing that should never, ever be underestimated is that he never appeared to lose his cool nor ask too much of his players. He knew how vital it was to continue to make the most of whatever he had and he did it. Obviously, given the rubbish NZ's bowlers could of times serve-up, it'd be very easy to blow your top repeatedly. But Fleming didn't. For 10 whole years.

That makes him in my book a far, far better captain than a Clive Lloyd or Stephen Waugh who virtually everyone who knew them said were no more than adaquete when it came to tactics. They just happened to lead (for the most part in Lloyd's case, for the whole part in Waugh's) far, far, far, far, far better sides which made their captaincy win-lose-draw records majorly more impressive.

What's interesting is that it's difficult to a particularly notably good captain with a really, really good side. Good captaincy skills are essentially wasted if your side is exceptional - being a really good captain is completely unneccessary with such a team. As well as situations like Fleming's, the place a really good captain comes out is in somewhere like Mark Taylor's, where he had a side comprised of plenty of excellence, mostly with 2 or 3 weak-links in there as well, and turned this side into one of the best ever.

Yeah, upon further consideration, it seems fairly obvious that the above list favors those captains who happened to have good sides playing for them. Case in point: Ricky Ponting, as fine a player as he is, his loss of cool under pressure and Aus's performance since the loss of McGrath and Warne isn't becoming of "the second best captain of all time" as the list claims. How much of their players' quality can be attributed to the captain's "captaincy skill" is debatable (very little, I would imagine).

It'd be interesting to see a qualitative approach to this question, although I imagine that's quite difficult to do so and will be hideously subjective.